You're right, if you go to the Wikipedia page on "reliability", that's the definition given by the disambiguation page. But reliable science is simply work that can be trusted, replicated, believed.

The story doesn't make any claims about whether Kahneman & Tversky's heuristics and biases are adaptive or deficient. Rather, the story predicts that, at some unspecified time in the future, the scientific community will come to feel as though people can't be trusted with science because of what the community knows then about human decision-making. There are plenty of other biases besides K & T's that are relevant to science (e.g., check out this wikipedia list of cognitive biases, which includes gems like the confirmation bias, which has done plenty of harm).